# Rakesh v. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Lko. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 391
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 4392 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-v-the-permanent-lok-adalat-lko-anr-54588
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A (1) -
U.P.Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 -
Section 52 - Plea for expeditious disposal
of application - Petitioner filed application
under Rule 109 after

## Text

9 All. Rakesh Vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Lko. & Anr.
391

18. The Apex Court recently in
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that
the appellate court is reversing the trial
court's order of acquittal, it should give
proper weight and consideration to the
presumption of innocence in favour of
accused, and to the principle that such a
presumption stands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court and in
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019)
18 SCC 161 held that judgment of
acquittal, where two views are possible,
should not be set aside, even if view
formed by appellate court may be a more
probable one, interference with acquittal
can only be justified when it is based on a
perverse view.

19. We have perused the deposition of
prosecution witnesses, documents proved
during
trial,
arguments
advanced
by
learned counsel for the parties and
meticulously examined the judgment under
appeal. The reasoning given by learned
Additional Session Judge is logical and
legal as well. The finding of learned trial
court need not be disturbed in present
appeal for reasons stated in foregoing
discussion.

20. The factual scenario in the present
case does not permit us to take a different
view than that of taken by learned trial
court. We find no reason to disagree with
the reasoning and finding of learned trial
court, thus we concur findings of the court
below.

21. Consequently keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case,
evidence adduced during trial and reasons
given by learned trial court and binding
precedent of Apex Court as cited above, we
are of the considered view that there is no
good ground to grant leave to appeal in the
instant case, which accordingly is refused,
consequently the government appeal also
stands dismissed, at the stage of admission
itself.

22. Let lower court record be send
back immediately for necessary action
alongwith certified copy of this judgment.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 391
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4392 of 2024

Rakesh ...Petitioner
Versus
The Permanent Lok Adalat, Lko. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajeet Kumar, Anjali Verma, Arvind Kumar,
Devendra Kumar Verma, Rinku Verma,
Sarvesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Section 22 - The Legal Services
Authority Act, 1987- Section 22-Territorial
jurisdiction of Lok Adalat- There is no
provision contained in the Legal Services
Authorities
Act
governing
the
territorial
jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat and in
these circumstances, the general principles
regarding territorial jurisdiction contained in the
Civil Procedure Code shall apply to proceeding
before Permanent Lok Adalat also. Section 20 of
the Civil Procedure Code provides that 'a suit
may be instituted within the court, within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction and defendants
reside or carry on business or personally works
for gain. When the defendant in the claim-
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company
Ltd has its office at Lucknow and it carries on
business within the limits of Lucknow, the
Permanent Lok Adalat at Lucknow has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by the
petitioner. (Para 4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Sri Rinku Verma, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged
validity of an order dated 01.05.2024
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No.02 of
2024, whereby the claim petition filed by
the petitioner was rejected at the admission
stage for the reason that the accident,
giving rise to the cause of action for filing
the claim, took place within the limits of
District Ayodhya. The Insurance policy of
the vehicle was issued by Universal Sompo
General Insurance Company Ltd. through
its web portal and the pollution 'under
control' certificate was issued from District
Unnao. The rejection under letter dated
28.11.2023
issued
by
the
Insurance
Company rejecting the petitioner's claim
mentions that the petitioner may take action
at one of the four levels mentioned in the
letter and he has an option to file a
complaint
before
the
Insurance
Ombudsman, but the petitioner has not
exercised those options. From the aforesaid
facts, the Permanent Lok Adalat came to a
conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the opposite party M/s Universal
Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd has
its office at Lucknow. Although Section 22D
of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987
provides that 'the Permanent Lok Adalat shall
be guided by the principles of natural justice,
objectivity, fair play, equality and other
principles of justice, and shall not be bound
by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Section 22 of the aforesaid Act provides that
'the Permanent Lok Adalats have the same
powers as are the vested in a Civil Court
under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 while
trying a suit in respect of certain matters
enumerated in that section.

4. There is no provision contained in
the Legal Services Authorities Act governing
the territorial jurisdiction of Permanent Lok
Adalat and in these circumstances, the
general principles regarding territorial
jurisdiction contained in the Civil Procedure
Code shall apply to proceeding before
Permanent Lok Adalat also. Section 20 of the
Civil Procedure Code provides that 'a suit
may be instituted within the court, within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction and
defendants reside or carry on business or
personally works for gain. When the
defendant in the claim-Universal Sompo
General Insurance Company Ltd has its
office at Lucknow and it carries on business
within the limits of Lucknow, the Permanent
Lok Adalat at Lucknow has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by the
petitioner.

5. In view of the above discussion,
this Court is of the considered view that the
order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat,
Lucknow
dismissing the petitioner's claim at the
admission stage on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction, is not sustainable in
law and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. So far as the observations of
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
regarding
9 All. Smt. Chandravati Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
393
alternative remedy is concerned, the Beema
Lok Pal has been constituted by a
notification
issued
by
the
Central
Government and it has not been constituted
under any statute. The remedy before
Insurance Lok Pal is not a statutory remedy
and it does not bar the petitioner's right to
file a claim before the Permanent Lok
Adalat.

7. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed. The order dated 01.05.2024 is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the
Permanent Lok Adalat Lucknow for
passing fresh orders regarding admission of
the claim in accordance with law, keeping
in view the observations made in this order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 393
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4474 of 2024

Smt. Chandravati Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A (1) -
U.P.Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 -
Section 52 - Plea for expeditious disposal
of application - Petitioner filed application
under Rule 109 after more than 30 years,
since impugned order dated 24.04.1993, a
certified copy whereof has not been
produced
by
petitioner
along
with
application for execution of order - The
photocopy of said order filed along with
execution application was not admissible -
Original record of proceedings in court of
Consolidation Officer stands weeded out -
Photocopy of order appears to be forged.
(Para 6)

A combined reading of Section 52 (2) of
Act, 1953 and Rule 109-A (2) of Rules
,1954 makes it clear that only orders
passed by Court of competent jurisdiction
in cases of writs filed under provisions of
Constitution of India, or in cases of
proceedings pending under Act on date of
issue of notification under sub-section (1),
shall be given effect to - Nothing on
record to indicate any writ petition was
filed or proceedings were pending on date
of notification u/s 52 (1) of Act, 1953 - In
these circumstances, said order cannot be
implemented
long
after
closure
of
consolidation operations - Declined to give
direction. (Para 9, 10)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Chandrajeet Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2009 SCC
OnLine All 2446 ; (2009) 108 RD 190

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan
Srivastava, the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Section 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has sought a
direction to the opposite party no. 2Consolidation
Officer
(Purana)
for
expeditious disposal of Case No. 65 of
2024, which is an application filed under
Rule 109-A (1) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act Rules, 1954 (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'the Rules of
1954'), for execution of an order dated